THE FRONT OFFICE ACTIVE MANAGEMENT 2.0

Transcription

1 THE FRONT OFFICE ACTIVE MANAGEMENT 2.0

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 10 Key Findings 4 Integration and Automation of the Trading Workflow 6 Shifting Interactions across the Front Office 13 Satisfaction With Current Level of Workflow Integration 16 Conclusion 17 About FactSet and TABB Group Automating the Front Office: Active Management 2.0

3 INTRODUCTION The active investment management business is enduring an unsettling amount of pressure from external forces, particularly from MiFID II and the shift to lower-fee passive investment strategies and exchange-traded funds. In TABB Group s U.S. Institutional Equity Trading (IET) study published in 2017, these two drivers were identified as the most disruptive factors facing the U.S. buy side. How investment firms organize themselves to deal with these headwinds and how they employ innovative technologies to achieve agility, efficiency, and compliance may be an indicator of their success or failure. Firms focused and strategic in the design of their technical architecture, processes, and workflows can gain considerable business advantages. By its own admission, the buy side aspires to be more streamlined and automated in its trading workflow as a means of coping with these burdens and retaining and growing their asset and revenue bases. Of the 95 U.S. buyside firms that TABB Group spoke with for its 2017 IET study, over one-quarter ranked enhancing technology as a top priority for this year, particularly as a way of dealing with the best execution mandate of regulators and investors and reducing reliance on their brokers for technology. Another one-quarter ranked improving workflow as their primary concern. Whether upgrading an order management system, automating remaining manual processes, or optimizing the relationship between portfolio manager and trader, virtually every firm in that IET study wanted to be more integrated across the trade decision-making and execution processes. This was true for firms of all sizes and assets under management. In a survey commissioned and designed by FactSet, TABB Group further queried 60 U.S. buy-side firms head traders, portfolio managers, analysts, and technologists about their existing workflows and level of process integration (Exhibit 1). Firms represented all tiers based on assets under management (Exhibit 2), although almost half had less than $10 billion in AUM. EXHIBIT 1: PARTICIPANT TYPE OF ASSET MANAGER 6% Pension Fund EXHIBIT 2: PARTICIPANT ASSETS UNDER MANAGEMENT $150 B+ $50-150B $25-50B $10-25B 20% Hedge Fund 26% Mutual Fund 9% 14% 12% 18% 1% Private Equity / Real Estate 47% Long Only < $10B 47% In U.S. Billions AUM, 03

4 10 INSIGHTS FOR ACTIVE INVESTMENT MANGERS WORKING TO ACHIEVE WORKFLOW INTEGRATION THE NEED FOR FRONT-OFFICE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION IS INCREASING 66% of U.S. buy-side firms said they are working towards achieving end-to-end systems and data workflow integration across the front-office or have achieved it already. COMPLIANCE DEMANDS ARE INCREASING THE NEED FOR A UNIFIED DATA VIEW 20% of respondents are looking to automate remaining manual processes internally to streamline the trade workflow, particularly how the desk interacts with the compliance department to improve operating efficiency. INVESTING IN DATA IS CRITICAL TO PROVIDING UNIQUE INSIGHTS 50% of tier 1 asset managers ($150+ billion AUM) have achieved some level of integration for unstructured data analytics into their workflow, but technologies are still being developed and adopted by mainstream asset managers. THE TRADE ORDER MANAGEMENT PROCESS DEMANDS THE LEAST AMOUNT OF MANUAL INTERACTION Most respondents said they use an integrated order execution management system, either licensed from one vendor or developed from multiple vendors. TRADERS ARE MOVING BEYOND JUST TRADE EXECUTION 1/3 Only one third of respondents said the roles of portfolio managers and traders have evolved over the past 10 years. They also said that traders have begun to take more control over their orders and a bigger role in asset allocation. 04 Automating the Front Office: Active Management 2.0

5 UPDATING TECHNOLOGY IS TOP PRIORITY 41% of respondents are looking to either upgrade or install a new order management system as their legacy technology matures. ADOPTING COGNITIVE TECHNOLOGIES WILL ADD OPPORTUNITIES respondents are currently using cognitive technologies such as machine learning for any their trade processes. 7%of EQUITIES LEAD THE AUTOMATION OF TRADE EXECUTION INTEGRATING FRONT-OFFICE SOLUTIONS WILL UNIFY THE ORGANIZATION 16% of respondents have achieved a significant level (more than 50%) of automation on almost a fifth of their order flow for equities trading. Tier 1 asset managers ($150+ billion AUM) have made the most progress in streamlining their trade workflow to have systems speak to each other. STREAMLINING COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE FRONT-OFFICE WILL HELP MITIGATE RISKS 20% of Head Traders said that they are adding resources to streamline communications between portfolio managers and the trading desk. 05

6 INTEGRATION AND AUTOMATION OF THE TRADING WORKFLOW Integration across the U.S. buy side s trading capabilities is being driven by expansion to new global locations and asset classes, by the need to understand total exposures, and by the demands of regulators for consolidated reporting. In turn, asset managers are adapting their trading workflows to accommodate these shifts. Global firms are trying to replicate the mature process they have in place for U.S. equities across their other desks, markets, and products. Building out a global multi-asset class framework and achieving scale from existing platforms is a key priority to support growth of the business. Consolidation of platforms, integration of processes, and automation of front-office functions can provide efficiencies, cost reduction, and the ability to apply insights from the abundance of data economic, client, transactions that resides throughout the complex investment decision-making process. How Integrated Is the Front-Office Workflow? The results of our study are promising, and firms appear to be following up on their 2017 objectives. Almost two thirds (66%) of the U.S. buy-side firms we interviewed said they are either working toward achieving end-to-end systems and data workflow integration across the front office, or have achieved it already (Exhibit 3). Almost 20% of head traders said that they are adding additional resources to the trading function and are working to streamline communications between portfolio managers and the trading desk to minimize errors. Despite this rosy outlook, one-third of respondents have not made any progress on integration or feel that they don t need or want systems and workflow integration. Generally speaking, Tier 1 asset managers (i.e. managers with $150 billion or more under management) have made the most progress in streamlining their trade workflow and having systems speak to each other, with all of them at varying stages of integration, ostensibly to make holistic sense of the complexities of their organizations. From a firm-type perspective, mutual fund companies, followed by longonly shops, appear to have aspired to and attained a significant level of front-office integration. On the other hand, pensions feel little need to achieve integration. One-quarter of the hedge funds we spoke with said integration of end-to-end systems is not needed, as they tend to be more inherently streamlined in their workflow and often trade a single asset class. Those that trade in multiple asset classes mainly comprised the group that is in the process of evaluating an integrated approach. Multiasset class strategies are typically executed across multiple dedicated best-of-breed platforms that need to roll up for asset allocation and exposure calculation, not to mention regulatory and client reporting. Moreover, when supporting a multi-asset class environment, one would assume that there would be multilegged/multi-asset trades to execute, which logically needs integration of data and execution workflow. Due to those needs, there is a requirement to be more technologically integrated and competent to support those workflows. Are Trading and Portfolio Management Truly Automated? In TABB Group s 2017 IET study, over one-quarter of buy-side head traders surveyed ranked technology as a top priority for the upcoming year. Of those, 41% were looking to either upgrade or install a new order management system as their legacy technology matures. This is a considerably higher percentage than the 2016 IET report as firms order management system (OMS) functionality continues to age. Almost 20% were still looking to automate those last remaining manual processes internally to streamline the trade workflow, particularly around how the desk interacts with the compliance department, and to generally improve operating efficiency. As compliance demands expand, all types of organizations have recognized the need for a unified view of data for reporting purposes. That unified view quite often will lead to recognition that many events within the trading workflow must be captured. Work, therefore, is applied to delivering a streamlined workflow that is integrated for both data and events. 06 Automating the Front Office: Active Management 2.0

7 EXHIBIT 3: LEVEL OF WORKFLOW INTEGRATION 11% 26% Yes, material progress has been made Yes, we are in the early stages No, but we are evaluating it 18% Yes, we have completed it No, we don t believe it is needed 23% 23% Results may not add to 100% due to rounding. What We re Hearing The Portfolio Mangers don t even have the trading system, so if there is any information we want to send on an order or want them to know, we have to it and create a report for them because they can t look at it in the system. We have to update an to show them what we ve executed for the day. - HEAD TRADER, SMALL ASSET MANAGER (<=$25 BILLION AUM) We have proprietary internal issues around portfolio management systems. Without having a core sophisticated portfolio management system that is up with the times, we have been a little held back. Part of it is because over the course of 15 years, you build all of these different integrations, and one system can become very embedded in a process, and for all of its faults, it can be very hard to extract. - HEAD TRADER, MEDIUM ASSET MANAGER ($26-$150 BILLION AUM) 07

8 In this follow-up study aimed at identifying, quantifying, and understanding the current level of automation across the investment process, we asked our respondents to rate the degree of automation of 12 processes on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 4 (highest) (Exhibit 4). The result shows that most processes were well along the path to automation. Overall, the trade order management process demands the least amount of manual interaction. The buy side employed order management systems to handle trade allocations well before the proliferation of execution management systems. Most respondents said they use an integrated order execution management system (OEMS), whether licensed from one vendor or developed from multiple vendors, with the exception being those with under $10 billion of AUM. Performance and attribution processes, which often reside within the OMS as a module and have their own dedicated teams, are also relatively mature and automated, followed by compliance, both client and regulatory. EXHIBIT 4: HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE CURRENT DEGREE OF AUTOMATION OF FRONT-OFFICE FUNCTIONS ON A SCALE OF 1 (LOW) TO 4 (HIGH)? Weighted Averages 2.88 Trade Order Management 2.77 Performance/Attribution 2.75 Client Complaince 2.75 Regulatory Compliance 2.58 Trade Execution/Monitoring 2.49 Trade Reporting 2.42 Screening/Modeling/Backtesting 2.31 Risk 2.25 Portfolio Construction 1.96 Predictive Analytics 1.89 Fundamental Research 1.79 Trade Simulation 08 Automating the Front Office: Active Management 2.0

9 The functions mainly associated with the investment decisionmaking process, such as screening and modeling, risk, portfolio construction, predictive analytics, fundamental research and analysis, and trade simulation, have yet to catch up with the trading functions, on average, across all types and sizes of asset managers, although it appears some progress has been made. The latter part of the investment process seems to have received more technology investment than the decision-making process, in part due to the intense focus on best execution and compliance, and the relative ease of automating trading functions compared to stock picking. Automation of the trade workflow does not eliminate the need for human intervention but maximizes the value of the trader by allowing them to focus their attention on the most complex trades. Notably, trade reporting, while still above average, is not automated enough. This does not bode well for global asset managers in the U.S. who will be required to report on trade execution as part of MiFID II, which took effect in January Trade reporting to clients and regulators tends to be highly customized and therefore difficult to scale and automate effectively. The aggregation of data across the portfolio and enterprise is a foundation for developing an interactive and enhanced reporting process. When breaking down this holistic view of process automation into averages by firm (Exhibit 5), mutual fund companies report a higher degree of overall automation due to heavy disclosure requirements from regulators and investors. In addition, the need for a mutual fund to calculate, report, and publish its price or net asset value daily leaves no room for manual processes or delays in booking trades. Hedge and pension funds lag longonly asset managers in terms of their automated functions, with hedge funds typically relying on prime brokers and/or administrators for assistance with at least some of them. In terms of firm size correlation to automation, not surprisingly, Tier 1 firms are above average, most likely because they need to integrate processes across trading desks and geographical regions to obtain an enterprise view of exposures (Exhibit 5). What We re Hearing Communication and collaboration have evolved as well. Both sides have had to understand that between the research process, the portfolio management process, and the trading process, to the degree that communication is not there, we become much less efficient. Ideas have to be aligned, otherwise the wheels get gunked up. - HEAD TRADER, MEDIUM ASSET MANAGER ($26-$150 BILLION AUM) It s just about looking at the investment process as a holistic tool of ideas, timing, all these different things, and not breaking it apart as PM, analyst, and trading functions. - HEAD TRADER, SMALL ASSET MANAGER (<=$25 BILLION AUM) 09

10 Who s Using Unstructured Data and Cognitive Technologies? Another area we wanted to explore is the degree of integration of large volumes of unstructured data analytics into the execution workflow and its influence on the investment decision-making process. While unstructured data has been touted as a transformative way to gain insight and intelligence in trading, respondents have been slow to incorporate the analysis of structured and unstructured data (Exhibit 6). The fact is that data is difficult. The sheer volume and complexity of data available for statistical analysis pose a challenge to the buy side. Analysis of such data requires a skill set that buy-side firms do not typically possess. It needs the ability to structure data in an extensive manner so systems can be agile in consuming and adding new data. Most large capital markets firms hire data scientists to construct the data fabric to achieve these goals. Some 50% of Tier 1 asset managers have achieved some level of integration of unstructured data analytics into their workflow, particularly mutual fund complexes, hedge funds, and long-only shops (Exhibit 7). Significant investment by larger firms in data is important to recognize as these investments are seen as providing differentiated insight. With data serving as the fuel for machine learning and artificial intelligence, we have concluded that those technologies are still in the process of being developed and adopted by mainstream asset managers. Traditional buy-side shops may or may not be looking to bring these skills in-house, but insight gleaned from large volumes of unstructured data is a differentiator. One alternative here is to partner with solution providers. EXHIBIT 6: HAVE YOU INTEGRATED BIG DATA ANALYTICS? No 82% Yes 18% EXHIBIT 7: INTEGRATION OF BIG DATA ANALYTICS INTO EXECUTION WORKFLOW BY FIRM TYPE AND AUM Mutual Fund 74% 26% $150 B+ 50% 50% Pension Fund 100% $50-150B 86% 14% Private Equity/ Real Estate 100% $25-50B 80% 20% Hedge Fund 80% 20% $10-25B 100% Long Only 86% 14% < $10B 85% 15% No Yes 10 Automating the Front Office: Active Management 2.0

11 In fact, only 7% of respondents currently use cognitive technologies such as machine learning for any of their trade processes (Exhibit 8). This 7% was pretty evenly spread across the different firm types. What is surprising and contrary to many of the results of this study is that 69% of mutual fund companies have no plans to do so either. However, they have adopted cognitive tools at a higher rate (15%) than other firms. In our outreach, we found that hedge funds have the second largest adoption rate and are using artificial intelligence to automate a portion of their trading. While cognitive is still emerging in the front office, it is moving into the compliance domain, specifically in trade surveillance: natural language processing using machine learning to monitor e-communications and voice communications and in AML/KYC screening. EXHIBIT 8: DO YOU USE COGNITIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR ANY PART OF THE TRADE WORKFLOW (OVERALL AND FIRM TYPE)? Yes we are We want to, but don t have thetechnical resources 7% 18% 8% 25% 17% 3% 19% 26% 15% 8% 8% 100% No, but we are exploring it 19% 50% 52% 69% No plan to do so 36% Hedge Fund Long Only Mutual Fund Pension Fund Results may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 11

12 What We re Hearing We have always done more than most traders do. We are a small shop, part of a larger company. We ve grown, but more on the client service and analyst side. The trading desk is still the same size, but we ve taken on more responsibility. We model portfolios, we model cash and take care of cash flows. We participate in the morning meetings and help with research, so we do more than I think a lot of other trading desks. - HEAD TRADER, SMALL ASSET MANAGER (<=$25 BILLION AUM) Things have to be more multi-asset, multi-instrument. Our current system is poor at handling simple derivatives, listed options and futures, currency forwards. - HEAD TRADER, SMALL ASSET MANAGER (<=$25 BILLION AUM) Equities Lead the Automation of Trade Execution With respect to trade execution and trade order workflow automation, we sought to understand the amount (percentage) of orders currently executed without manual intervention by electronically traded, liquid asset class (Exhibit 9). Equities trading is the most automated, with 16% of respondents having achieved a significant level (more than 50%) of automation on almost a fifth of their order flow. No firm has achieved 100% automation of their fixed income flow, but 2.5% and 4.65% have done so for their fixed income and derivatives trades, respectively. However, the lowest overall average level of automation was, surprisingly, in fixed income trading. EXHIBIT 9: PERCENTAGE OF ORDER FLOW THAT IS AUTOMATICALLY EXECUTED BY ASSET CLASS Equities 70% 13% 11% 5% 2% Derivatives 88% 7% 5% Fixed Income 90% 5% 5% Foreign Exchange 93% 2% 2%2% 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-99% 100% 12 Automating the Front Office: Active Management 2.0

13 SHIFTING INTERACTIONS ACROSS THE FRONT OFFICE Given some of the transformation initiatives that were highlighted in the TABB Group s 2017 IET study, particularly the ones targeted at improving the integration between portfolio managers and traders, we set out to better understand if and/or how the roles may be evolving. Has there been improvement of communication and an increase in collaboration between traders and portfolio managers? Is there still a clear delineation between the two functions? Separate and Distinct but Together The results were mixed: Only one third of respondents said the roles had evolved over the past 10 years in their organizations (Exhibit 10). Those in that minority commented that traders have begun to take more control over their orders and a bigger role in asset allocation. Collaboration between the roles has become more technical, and in some shops, traders have been integrated into the portfolio management team to analyze and improve timing and provide greater input into portfolio construction and risk management. On the other hand, none were quick to admit that the roles were converging, although the lanes were clearly shifting. Some traders we spoke with conveyed some degree of frustration with portfolio managers not entering their own orders, even though this was raised as a firm compliance issue. Many trading desks are shifting some aspects of the role to the middle office to provide dedicated support to portfolio managers. The most change has been experienced by the Tier 1 firms, with half saying that the roles have changed over the last 10 years. The ones interviewed mentioned that the portfolio managers enter their trades directly into the blotter where they are picked up by the designated traders. Tier 2 and 3 firms have noticed a relatively lower level of change, especially by those with less than $25 billion under management. At this level there is more reliance on the traders from the portfolio managers to enter trade orders. Putting aside the debate as to whether this is compliant or not, there is a reluctance on the part of portfolio managers to access the order management system directly. EXHIBIT 10: HAVE THE ROLES OF PM AND TRADER CHANGED AT YOUR ORGANIZATION OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS (OVERALL AND AUM)? $150 B+ 50% 50% 50% 50% 33% $51-150B 29% 71% 67% $26-50B $11-25B < $10B 40% 60% 30% 70% 30% 70% Yes No 13

14 Using Technology to Achieve Integration Over one-quarter of buy-side head traders surveyed as part of the TABB Group s 2017 IET study ranked technology as a top priority for the year. Of those, 41% were looking to either upgrade or install a new order management system. As part of this current research, we wanted to understand the usage of an OEMS as a possible bellwether for some degree of buyside trade workflow integration. Overall, 56% of respondents, especially larger firms and mutual fund companies, use an OEMS (Exhibits 11 and 12). Only one-third of hedge funds reported using a combined OEMS. Smaller firms cited low volumes and a lack of latency for continuing to use separate order and execution systems. Others said they have not been able to locate best-of-breed functionality in a combined system, but if such an offering existed, they would be very interested in it. Some of the capabilities they are looking for are a streamlined workflow, stability and ease of use by the investment team, the ability for a single trader to manage thousands of orders simultaneously, and having it be multi-asset class all with real-time pre- and posttrade analytics. EXHIBIT 11: DO YOU CURRENTLY EMPLOY AN INTEGRATED OEMS? No 44% Yes 56% The majority of firms that employ an integrated OEMS tend to develop the functionality both in-house and with a third-party vendor (Exhibit 13). A very small number have developed their capabilities totally in-house, with those concentrated in the Tier 2 space. EXHIBIT 12: OEMS USAGE BY FIRM TYPE 100% 61% 67% 69% 39% 33% 31% Long Only Hedge Fund Mutual Fund Pension Fund Yes No 14 Automating the Front Office: Active Management 2.0

15 EXHIBIT 13: IF YOU USE AN OEMS, WHERE ARE YOUR ORDER AND EXECUTION MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS BEING DEVELOPED (OVERALL AND AUM)? Entirely in-house 4% $150 B+ 40% 20% 40% Combination of in-house and third-party vendor 41% $51-150B 25% 50% 25% $26-50B 50% 25% 25% By a single third-party vendor 31% $11-25B 33% 67% By two or more third-party vendors 24% < $10B 40% 30% 30% Entirely in-house By a single third-party vendor Combination of in-house and third-party vendor By two or more third-party vendors What We re Hearing The problem is that we are a smaller shop, and PMs are not used to entering their own orders so it s not going to go back to them. It s going to stick with the trading desk like a junior trader or trading assistant. A lot of shops sadly have let the trading desk do it until there s a big error and then they take it away from the trading desk and send it back to the PMs. - HEAD TRADER, SMALL ASSET MANAGER (<=$25 BILLION AUM) The two roles have definitely split. Over the past 10 years, I think our portfolio management team has become laser-focused on what they do, and trading is much more laser-focused on what we do. That s not to say that there isn t a lot of communication and strategizing that s required between the two. The roles evolved but they are definitely distinct. - HEAD TRADER, MEDIUM ASSET MANAGER ($26-$150 BILLION AUM) 15

16 SATISFACTION WITH CURRENT LEVEL OF WORKFLOW INTEGRATION Given that two thirds of asset managers have either achieved end-to-end systems integration or are working on it, are lacking automation across critical portfolio management functions, and are manually intervening in most of their trade orders, how happy are they with the current state of affairs, and is there a correlation? A total of 61% of respondents are either satisfied (54%) or very satisfied (7%) with their existing level of workflow integration (Exhibit 14). Three quarters of Tier 1 asset managers had a higher-than-average positive rating for their current processes. Tier 2 managers had a lower-than-average satisfaction rating. Mid-size firms seem to have achieved a sweet spot, with 100% being relatively content with their state of integration. The only firm types that mentioned dissatisfied constituents were long-only shops, but conversely, they also have the highest overall level of satisfaction, followed by mutual fund companies. About a fifth of the hedge funds that we reached out to have a very favorable opinion of their integration level, but almost half do not. Our small sample of pension funds were not happy either. EXHIBIT 14: ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH YOUR CURRENT LEVEL OF WORKFLOW INTEGRATION (OVERALL AND FIRM TYPE)? 11% 45% 23% 40% 54% 32% 100% 36% 60% 60% 7% 7% 18% 6% Hedge Fund Long Only Mutual Fund Pension Fund Very Satisfied Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied 16 Automating the Front Office: Active Management 2.0

17 CONCLUSION The U.S. investment management industry is becoming increasingly technical across all aspects of the transaction lifecycle. Driven by the flow of assets to passive, lower-fee products, and the iron fist of regulators demanding faster, more accurate consolidated reporting, the buy side is turning the corner toward automation. The portfolio management function, while perhaps the least able to be automated, is following the transformation of the trading desk by encouraging adoption of advanced technologies. While a few laggard portfolio managers hesitate to touch an order management system, compliance and an agile workflow will demand their involvement. On the other hand, traders are taking more control of their orders and a more active role in portfolio construction, trade timing, and risk management. In some cases, they have been integrated into the portfolio management team to provide greater input. The trader-portfolio manager interaction has become much more collaborative and technical, and traders are moving beyond just trade execution to contributing to the profit and loss of the business. Technology and integration of the trade workflow have contributed to this greater collaboration, and progress is being made in automation and the use of advanced technologies such as big data analysis and cognitive tools, especially among Tier 1 firms. But there is still work to do. Many organizations don t possess the skill set to move ahead with these projects, which may prove to be a misstep. Efficiencies gained from integration and the ability to analyze new data sets will be a competitive advantage for a limited time only. As adoption grows across larger firms, and as mid-tier firms step up their pursuit of market share, those that don t will be distinctly disadvantaged. An investment in systems integration, perhaps starting with a combined order management/execution management system will yield long-term viability in an industry undergoing transformation. And firms don t need to do it themselves: there is help out there. 17

18 METHODOLOGY This research was designed by FactSet and TABB Group and undertaken in the third quarter of The participants were head traders, portfolio managers, analysts, and technologists from 60 U.S. buy-side firms that represented all tiers based on AUM. The research was conducted via online survey and phone interviews. ABOUT FACTSET FactSet (NYSE:FDS NASDAQ:FDS) delivers superior analytics, service, content, and technology to help more than 66,000 users see and seize opportunity sooner. We are committed to giving investment professionals the edge to outperform, with fresh perspectives, informed insights, and the industry-leading support of our dedicated specialists. We re proud to have been recognized with multiple awards for our analytical and data-driven solutions and are repeatedly ranked as one of Fortune s 100 Best Companies to Work For and a Best Workplace in the UK and France. Subscribe to our thought-leadership blog to gain fresh insight delivered daily at insight.factset.com. For more information, contact us at sales@factset.com Learn more at and follow us on Twitter: ABOUT TABB GROUP TABB Group is the international research and consulting firm focused exclusively on capital markets, founded on the interview-based research methodology developed by Larry Tabb. Since 2003, TABB Group has been helping business leaders gain a truer understanding of financial markets issues to develop actionable roadmaps and approaches to growth. By accurately assessing their customer base, competition and key market opportunities, TABB Group works with senior industry leaders to make critical decisions about their business. For more information, visit TABB Group s FinTech Practice TABB Group s FinTech research practice is specifically designed to help financial institutions understand the latest spending trends, strategies and solutions that are critical to achieving best practices in financial services technology, data, analytics and technical infrastructure. This service also helps technology and data solution sales and marketing organizations understand specific requirements and use cases within financial services and capital markets firms. FINTECH TEAM Dayle Scher, Senior Analyst: dscher@tabbgroup.com Dayle Scher is a senior analyst at TABB Group specializing in financial technology. She is a seasoned financial services industry executive with more than 30 years of experience in senior positions on the buy side at leading institutions. Her past positions include Operations Manager at Morgan Stanley Investment Management; Vice President, Investment Operations at MFS Investment Management Inc.; Vice President, Investment Solutions at State Street Corp.; and Research Director, Securities and Investments at CEB TowerGroup. Terry Roche, Head of FinTech Research: troche@tabbgroup.com Monica Summerville, Senior Analyst, msummerville@tabbgroup.com 18 Automating the Front Office: Active Management 2.0